Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Kidwell Construction Co.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.
- McDowell v. Dallas Teachers Credit Union (Tex. App. 1989)
- Ray v. Farmers' State Bank of Hart (Tex. 1979)
- Jodi Strobach v. WesTex Community Credit Union (Tex. App. 2019)
- City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson (Tex. Crim. App. 2015)
- Tumlinson v. First Victoria National Bank (Tex. App. 1993)
- Schoenfelder v. Arizona Bank (Ariz. 1990)
- First City National Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance (5th Cir. 1986)
- Five Towns College v. Citibank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- K & K Manufacturing, Inc. v. Union Bank (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981)
- Hanover Ins. Companies v. Brotherhood State Bank (District Court, D. Kansas 1979)
- Frost National Bank v. Nicholas & Barrera (Tex. App. 1976)
- Nu-Way Services, Inc. v. Mercantile Trust Co. National Ass'n (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)
- Dominion Construction, Inc. v. First National Bank (Md. 1974)
- Taylor v. Equitable Trust Co. (Md. 1973)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The application for writ of error in this case is refused with the notation “no re *118 versible error”. The court of civil appeals at 463 S.W.2d 465, construed two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code; Sec. 4.-406, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code, and Sec. 3.406, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code. As to the former, the court of civil appeals held that the trial court’s finding that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying certain forged checks was supported by some evidence. The court therefore held that the depositor was not precluded from asserting a claim based upon the forgeries under Sec. 4.406(b). Our disposition of the application for writ of error in this case is not to be interpreted as approval or disapproval of the additional holding of the court of civil appeals that the “depositor is chargeable with a knowledge of such facts as an honest agent would acquire from an impartial examination” of the depositor’s monthly bank statement. That holding does not affect the judgment of the court of civil appeals.
Neither do we approve or disapprove the holding of the court of civil appeals under Section 3.406. The court of civil appeals held that “There is nothing in the record to suggest that * * * any officer of the company was guilty of negligence substantially contributing to [the forger’s] unfaithful conduct” so as to invoke this statute. 463 S.W.2d at 469. This holding may be logically incompatible with the court’s holding, under Section 4.406, that the company was charged with the knowledge of a hypothetical honest agent. We do not reach this issue, however, because the bank has not asserted appropriate points of error against the trial court’s finding that the bank’s payment of the forged checks was not in accordance with reasonable commercial standards. Under our construction of Section 3.406, a negligent depositor is not precluded from asserting a claim if he establishes that the bank’s payment of the forged checks was not in accordance with such standards.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.